https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref...
The only exception I've ever heard of is Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods, but you could argue that Amazon wasn't competing much with Whole Foods before it purchased them.
The full quotation is:
> As to its price-increase theory, the government itself conceded that the merger would cause prices to go down for millions of AT&T customers nationwide. The government’s own “bargaining model” likewise showed a price decrease for all consumers, once the correct data were employed. And the government’s own economic expert effectively repudiated its other two theories of likely harm. The government, in short, gave the Court no basis for finding that this merger is likely to reduce competition at all, much less substantially. Rather, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products, and compete more effectively against the increasingly powerful, vertically integrated “FAANG” companies.
The brief was addressing the predictions of the economic model the DOJ offered in opposing the merger. Nowhere did AT&T, as Brodkin misleadingly suggests, "promise" to "lower prices" (or that no specific rate would never go up). Of course, that all makes sense. AT&T had no reason to make such promises. In blocking a merger, the burden of proof is on the DOJ. They have to show consumer harm; the merger company has no burden to show consumer benefits. Why would AT&T go out on a limb and make promises it has no reason to make?
Moreover, the brief addresses the government's arguments for blocking AT&T's merger with Time Warner, which has nothing to do with the price of DirecTV:
> The government’s central prediction of harm rests on the premise that AT&T would use Time Warner’s Turner content as a “weapon” against rival distributors by threatening to withhold it during bargaining, thereby forcing them to pay higher prices.
The subject of the briefing was prices for content distribution. Prices for DirecTV--what Brodkin points to--have nothing to do with that.
(0)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
(1)
I have a service. You have a service. Let's combine them to eliminate competition between us and make both of us richer with higher prices.
Let's say there are two competing companies, I could myself as an investor chose where to put my money, in one or the other or both. When they merge I lose the ability to place my money how I see fit.
As my professor/dean in financial economics said: If you get to vote on a merger, always vote no!
He does not care that the facts suggest that there's an underlying cost increase that affect all streaming services equally. He has an agenda to push, and nobody is going to stop him from pushing it.
This makes them defacto critical national security infrastructure and thus completely immune to the kind of recourse and accountability that all corporations should be subject to.
The technicality of being an independent and non-governmental entity allows them to collect and in turn share back[to the NSA] information about the traffic that crosses their fabric circumventing those pesky laws which purportedly prohibit the NSA from operating within our borders and inspecting local-only traffic.
AT&T is only going to be checked by legislation now as it has always been. The last time they were broken up they magically reassembled themselves because voters allowed it.
Until we as a country decide that communication infrastructure, like roads, can't be owned by quasi public/private abominations like AT&T but instead only held by us, the people and our government we will continue to get the worst from this present unholy union.
Someone please explain to me why AT&T (or its counsel) isn't in contempt of court or guilty of lying under oath? Did they just use weaselly language in their briefs and testimony that didn't actually say anything of substance?
It seems to me like there's a serious flaw in this process if a company like AT&T can make claims like it did without any obligation to follow through.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, but I didn't want to rely on Ars Technica's paraphrase.
I would hope such "arguments" could be efficiently shot down by the observation that, by the same logic, buying Time Warner would similarly allow [AT&T] to buy every American a pony. The likelihood of that happening is similar to the likelihood AT&T would lower its prices post-merger.
https://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-makes-the-case-for-time-w...
AT&T just spent $85bln and someone believes the prices will be lower?!
With this step they will have better cash-flow earlier.
On the digital side, I did noticed that YouTube TV, Sling, and now DirecTV Now are all raising their prices.
I used to work in a bank that merged with another and the amount of inefficiencies, double teams/management and general disgruntlement was staggering. I left and so did most of the ones capable of finding new jobs. The ones that stayed behind were not the highest performers.
Another one is from macro economics. When two companies compete they tend to be very efficient but when they merge they have no more incentives to compete to attract customers. The result is higher prices to customers and lower effectiveness. Imagine what would happen if Intel bough AMD.
But the main issue is that I want to manage my investments myself and not let the companies manage it for me by merging.
It's even worse when you consider the presidential elections, though. In that case, there are only 2 sets of candidates to deal with. If you had enough money/influence to spend, how difficult would it be to make sure that the candidates for both parties were selected to be sympathetic to your cause? Or if you can't do that, make sure that the match up in the election is in your favour.
A lot of people on HN have at least some experience with security on computer system. We've seen how people will search for the slightest vulnerability and leverage it to get an advantage. When you look at the electoral system, it's completely insane how vulnerable it is. And with so much money on the line, it would be completely unrealistic to imagine that it's not already completely compromised.
Having said that, I'm not really intending this to be a rant against the US electoral system only. Some systems in the world are slightly better IMHO, but only slightly. Given that the system is likely to be compromised already and the system is only changeable within that compromised structure, I think there is little one can do. Lately I think it's better to act outside of the system. If you want something done, then don't vote for it. You need to get off your bum and actually do it. This is a problem (especially for me!) because most people (including myself) feel like the situation is "good enough" that it's not worth getting involved. However, I encourage people who are more motivated than me to trying to do good with their own 2 hands instead of encouraging them to vote for the "right" person.
Honestly, the only an independent candidate would win in a 3 way race like this is if many different crises hit the US all at once, like housing, unemployment, drug, crime, loss of world power status, food oil water shortages, etc